Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Business Administration, College of Business, University of Jeddah, Hamzah Ibn Al Qasim St, Al Sharafeyah, Jeddah, 23218, Makkah Province, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: mmiralam@uj.edu.sa
  • 2 Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia. Electronic address: saifahamed01@gmail.com
  • 3 Department of Business Administration, College of Business, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: anazneen@uj.edu.sa
  • 4 School of Management & Business (SOMB), MILA University, Nilai, Malaysia. Electronic address: rasheedul.haque@mila.edu.my
  • 5 College of Business Administration, University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: sayeed@ubt.edu.sa
  • 6 Faculty of Business and Communications, INTI International University, Malaysia. Electronic address: arahman.senathirajah@newinti.edu.my
Acta Psychol (Amst), 2026 Oct 27;271:107971.
PMID: 42945736 DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107971

Abstract

Blockchain can strengthen supply-chain transparency and traceability, but implementation does not necessarily imply full acceptance of the visibility it creates. This study examines how psychological transparency risk, economic transparency risk, and traceability resistance relate to blockchain traceability implementation in Saudi manufacturing firms. Drawing on Transparency Paradox Theory, Information Asymmetry Theory, and Technology Threat Avoidance Theory, the model distinguishes risk appraisals from organisational resistance behaviour. Three-wave survey data from 703 firms were analyzed using PLS-SEM, supported by confirmatory factor analysis, predictive assessment, unit-weighted comparison, and Gaussian Copula analysis. The model explained 67.3% of the variance in implementation and 66.7% in resistance. Contrary to expectations, psychological and economic transparency risks were positively associated with implementation and negatively associated with resistance. Traceability resistance was negatively associated with implementation and was the only direct relationship supported in the hypothesized direction. The indirect effects through resistance were positive, while relational trust and digital capability produced asymmetric moderating effects. The findings show that recognising exposure, control, and commercial vulnerability should not be equated with resistance. Firms may acknowledge these risks while continuing to implement blockchain, whereas delayed integration, restricted access, selective disclosure, and symbolic compliance remain important barriers. The study contributes by separating transparency-risk appraisal, resistance behaviour, and operational implementation, while offering practical guidance on differentiated access controls, disclosure governance, and monitoring of observable resistance.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.